Andy RennardMar 12, 2023
Halide + Kino

Reddit user ibreakphotos discovers that Samsung's 'Space Zoom' simply replaces user's moon photos with higher-res images of the moon through a clever testing process.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/

This isn't computational photography — it's inserting imagery that simply isn't there.

Samsung "space zoom" moon shots are fake, and here is the proof

**This post has been updated with several additional experiments in newer posts, which address most comments and clarify what exactly is going...

reddit
Mar 11, 2023 at 8:05pmWeb
Show threadTobias Due MunkMar 11, 2023
@halide it _is_ there though. The phone just isn’t able to capture it.
Why should my photos that include the moon not look like what I was seeing when took the picture?
Show threadsdwMar 11, 2023
@tobiasdm @halide because this isn't adding the detail you saw, it's adding manufactured, pre-stored data that doesn't match reality. It just infills a texture. Do you want your camera to do this for say, your kids' eyes too?
Show threadTobias Due MunkMar 11, 2023
@sdw @halide if it knew what my kids eyes looked like, probably. I’m just taking a picture of the moon though, so doesn’t have the same sentimental value to me as my kids eyes. I wish the camera sensor could capture what I saw better, but this seems like a decent workaround for now.
I can’t agree with the this-is-fake response since all photos are fake compared to what _I_ saw anyways. We need brain sensors for that 😊
I just want a picture of how I saw something. And the moon had texture.
Show threadTobias Due MunkMar 11, 2023
@sdw @halide and isn’t Halide’s 3x zoom on non-Pro phones technically using pre-stored data?
Show threadTobias Due MunkMar 12, 2023

@sdw @halide hehe certainly an unpopular opinion judging by all the comments 😛
But can we get closer to a technical explanation of the different type of enhanced photography we’re seeing these days? Computational photography, super resolution, machine learning. I’m not sure I see a red line of what is ok or not.

I do see a conservative “real photography” group with gate keeping and other stuff when technology and culture moves forward/on with their definition of red line changing over time.

Show threadbeckobertMar 13, 2023
@tobiasdm @sdw @halide
I think what Samsung does is much closer to image generation than photography. It is quite similar to something like Dall-E (but smaller in scale due to the narrower use case), with the difference that instead of writing a prompt like "Photo of the moon with a crater of the right and top right and some dark spots close to the center" you give it a low resolution photo containing the same information and the NN produces a picture.
Show threadShantiniMar 11, 2023
@tobiasdm @sdw @halide imagine if instead of a camera, this were a telescope, and you were an astronomer. Photography is a form of knowledge discovery. It shouldn’t extrapolate.
Show threadDuncan MurrayMar 12, 2023
@tobiasdm @sdw @halide It is fake. It 'deceives' you by suggesting that your phone captured this detail and it 'replicates' the detail from other photos. That is what fake is. You might be ok with it in this context, but you might not in others.
Show threadq2rg ltkmrMar 12, 2023
@tobiasdm @sdw @halide I find this is highly deceptive. It gives a false idea of what technology can do and at the same time it gives a dangerous precedent of personal computers replacing reality with simulation with zero transparency.
I wouldn't wanna put this sort of a "Santa Claus" inside the tech my children get familiar with. I would want my children to grow up with a grasp on what's going on.
Show threadCassandrichMar 11, 2023
@sdw @tobiasdm @halide It's also necessarily going to be badly mismatched with the surrounding photo, at least in some cases. Clouds, color from atmospheric effects, focus, etc.
Show threadCassandrichMar 11, 2023
@sdw @tobiasdm @halide It's important that we continually draw attention to this kind of garbage faking "photographs", because these "photographs" will end up getting entered into evidence in trials and sending someone to jail based on something some AI bro's creation pulled out of its ass. Maybe it won't be the moon that does that, but the sooner the public starts to understand the scope of the fakery, the better.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023

@sdw is it tough?

This looks like aggressive image sharpening on the blurred image and whatever noise the camera chip introduces.

To test for pre stored detail you'd have to use an image of a cratory white object that isn't the moon and see if a moon is being put on top of it.

Show threadJernej Simončič �Mar 12, 2023
@betalars @sdw The picture on the left is a 170x170 pixel photo of the moon that was blurred, then blown up and shown on a computer screen, which was then photographed with the phone – resulting in the right picture. There is no mathematically possible way to get the detail on the right from just the picture on the left.
Show threadChris K.Mar 12, 2023
@betalars @sdw I recommend reading the full post. They do numerous tests, including clipping the whites of the test image, and it always results in the same detailed photo of the moon.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023
@chrisk okay the last edit had me convinced, I didn't read as much.
Show threadLRMar 12, 2023
@sdw @tobiasdm @halide think of the children!
Show threadAdam DallianceMar 12, 2023

@sdw @tobiasdm @halide

Imagine a massive meteor strike on the moon that adds a new deep crater down there in the south where it's mostly flat.

Everyone's trying to take photos of the new crater, but the phones are removing it and adding in the pre-loaded moon texture instead.

Show threadBruno PhilipeMar 12, 2023
@tobiasdm @halide Why stop it there, then? Get rid of the camera entirely. Ask DALL-E to render everything you want images from. Much cheaper.
Show threadOriel Jutty Mar 12, 2023
@tobiasdm @halide No, the picture on the left is of a computer monitor in a dark room showing a full-screen image that was digitally blurred. That is, this is not a photo of the moon, it is a photo of a badly blurred image of the moon. The detail on the right is fabricated and does not match what you would've been seeing in person.
Show threadJernej Simončič �Mar 12, 2023
@tobiasdm @halide But in this case you weren't seeing the moon, you were looking at a low-res blurry picture on a computer screen.
Show threadSylvhemMar 12, 2023

@tobiasdm If you want to look at a photography someone else has taken, why do you bother with using a camera in the first place? Just go and download one. There will be far better that whatever you would be taking with a phone camera.

@halide

Show threadbroonMar 12, 2023
@tobiasdm it literally is not there in this example. And they're lying about what the "camera" is doing
Show threadSunflower Björnskalle 🌻Mar 14, 2023
@tobiasdm @halide You don't value authenticity, but can't you see why many other people do?
Show threadLee Mifsud Mar 11, 2023
@halide Next you’ll be telling me that when I take a selfie it’s replacing me with a Google image of a generic sexy hunk.
Show threadianMar 11, 2023
@halide crikey
Show threadviviridian ​Mar 11, 2023
@halide this is an incredibly samsungbrained feature
Show threadPlus UltraMar 11, 2023
@halide HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Show threadキャリーMar 12, 2023
@halide Samsung’s influence is so small that this tremendous embarrassment will at mostly only be covered by a few tech blogs.
Show threadBill AdlerMar 12, 2023

@halide

This isn't computational photography and it's also not proper.

Show threadaeberbachMar 12, 2023
@halide of all the companies that could have done this this I am not even a tiny bit surprised at which one chose to do it.
Show threadLenniMar 12, 2023
@halide @blackspear I’ll just leave my game boy camera picture of the moon here. 100% free of ai enhancement 😜
Show threadlevampyreMar 12, 2023

@halide

alt text: the image shows two close up pictures of the moon side by side. the left one is light and blurry, the right one shows all the mare crisp and sharp.

Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023

@halide this is a bad methodology. When claiming they are adding fake moon detail, they need to test that with an image from the backside of the moon or something to see if it overlays structure that isn't there.

This just looks like image sharpening to me.

Edit: oh shit, they did test it with a cut-off mon and a full moon in the same picture and the phone only did detail recovery on the full moon, so samsung is doing more than just detail recovery.

Show threadMartijn van DijkMar 12, 2023
@betalars @halide did you read the Reddit thread at all? They put a blurry picture of the moon on their computer screen. Then took a picture with the Samsung camera. It filled in the texture. That’s not sharpening in my book lol.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023

@martijn_vdijk @halide

That is in fact what happens when you use agreessive sharpening on top of a blurry image and image sensor noise, as I've reproduced here.

Mind you this is a pretty hacky job.

Show threadMartijn van DijkMar 12, 2023
@betalars @halide it’s a hacky job but I can see where you’re going at. Makes me want to get to the bottom of this.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023
@martijn_vdijk The bottom of it is: algorithms and humans will find all sorts of patterns in noise.
Show threadMartijn van DijkMar 12, 2023

@betalars that’s definitely true. Reminds me that this page is a thing: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

On the other hand, your point makes me doubt what’s going on in that Samsung camera app and whether that Reddit user is right or not.

Spurious Correlations

Correlation is not causation: thousands of charts of real data showing actual correlations between ridiculous variables.

Show threadVille TurpeinenMar 12, 2023

@martijn_vdijk OP in Reddit did another test where he over exposed the image to blow highlights so there was absolutely no details left, and the phone still managed to somehow capture detailed surface, so it’s definitely faking and just making up details out of nowhere. Also here is another example from two years ago, Samsung phone inserting fake texture over the moon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/samsung/comments/l7ay2m/analysis_samsung_moon_shots_are_fake/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

ANALYSIS - Samsung Moon Shots are Fake

Posted in r/samsung by u/moonfruitroar • 415 points and 57 comments

reddit
Show threadMatt Maber 📷🔴Mar 12, 2023
@betalars @halide the detail in the second image is not in the first. The phone AI decided it was the moon and so put an image of the moon there.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023
@Mattmaber adding detail that's not really there is not the same as adding pre-stored detail and overlying it to cheat.
Show threadMatt Maber 📷🔴Mar 12, 2023
@betalars both equally cheating. At least if they’re not honest about it.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023

@Mattmaber so what?

Digital stabilization is Cheating?
Noise-Reduction is cheating?
Color Grading Photos is cheating?
Color Dodging in darkrooms is cheating?
Using a tilt shift lens is cheating?
Seasoning food is cheating?

You're digitizing analog photos. Why don't you just send me a copy so I can look at the analog thing? You're cheating!

Yes, phone cameras are bad. Everyone knows this. Samsung, Apple and Google would be stupid to not use the compute on their devices to improve images.

Show threadMatt Maber 📷🔴Mar 12, 2023
@betalars whoosh. From a marketing perspective it’s more about them not revealing the full true story. But do what you want with your photos but it’s always a good idea to be honest about how they’re created. What they are and what they very much are not.
“improve images” is super subjective. And in this instance imho it’s very much not “improving” an image but creating something which is not even there in reality. But you do you.
Show threadMatt Maber 📷🔴Mar 12, 2023
@betalars No one is arguing “what is art?” Simply this IS patently dishonest about what is the photo and what software has added after. It’s not an intellectual discussion.
Show threadbetalars  @homeMar 12, 2023

@Mattmaber okay you kind of struck my nerve with cheating there, as this is an argument a lot of people tend to make.

I think capturing an image that is good enough of the moon to be able to figure out its orientation anddo the detail recovery from a phone camera is still pretty wild and a huge achievement. You would not be able to do that on what apple is capturing on their sensor.

But the sensor data itself is not as good as the result suggests and they are helping out with training data.

Show threadMatt Maber 📷🔴Mar 12, 2023
@betalars I think you’re reading too much into what their “AI” might be doing. Also yes it is cheating. They’re cheating by not revealing the process. And anyone claiming to submit a “photo” taken using this software would also be highly misleading their audience. Maybe not even to their knowledge, but that just makes it all the more worse actions (or lack of) from the manufacturer imho.
Show threadMatt Maber 📷🔴Mar 12, 2023
@betalars “But the sensor data itself is not as good as the result suggests and they are helping out with training data” that’s being too kind. Blatantly the image is totally unrelated to the sensor data and just an image of the moon the software has “on file”. The phones gone : this is the moon, it’s blurry - here have a better copy.
Show threadJames HoldenMar 12, 2023
@halide an interesting follow on experiment would be to progressively deface and distort the low resolution image to see if those changes alter the resulting “enhanced” image, and eventually see when the software just goes “no, that’s not the moon” and doesn’t alter it at all.
Show threadLRMar 12, 2023
@halide scandalous!
Show threadCegorachMar 12, 2023

@halide the days of cameras reproducing what they see is finally over

Nowadays they just tell you what they think they saw - up to straight just hallucinating things

This fits right into animal brain "I'll recognize faces everywhere - even in that cloud over there!"-territory

Show threadIan RidgwellMar 12, 2023
@halide Thats just wild. Like if you used a selfie cam and it just shopped someone sexier who looked like you into the peice... just wow.
Show threadSylvhemMar 12, 2023
@halide Oh wow. This is terrible.
Show threadpaulmwatsonMar 12, 2023
@halide it’s funny in a schadenfreude way but also a good example of how inward large data models are. Nothing new under the sun, or moon in this case. Killing creativity for pastiche.
Show threadAlrickMar 12, 2023
@halide ça devrait plaire à @Cafeine ça 😆
Show threadCaf ☕Mar 12, 2023
@Alrick @halide déjà trashed Samsung lol :p
Show threadPhilip DutréMar 12, 2023
@halide Reminds of an art project form perhaps 15 or 20 years ago: the ‘camera’ doesn’t take a picture, but downloads one when you push the button, based on its current location. Works great for touristic photo hotspots.
Show threadmumblegrepperMar 12, 2023
@halide damn, I was hoping for more details of my kids moon lamp
Show threadGigi AmorosoMar 12, 2023
@halide Piękne 😁
Show threadRalf KotthoffMar 12, 2023
@halide
meine Huawei Telefone haben das auch lange gemacht. Fand ich einen super
Spaß. Leider war das mit irgendeinem Update wieder weg. @marcelweiss